Is anyone not a fan of the M6 Scout?

S

Scottman

Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
1,079
I know firearms are a very personal thing, but I have to ask the question that is the title of this thread. I HAD an m6 scout. It weighed 4 lbs 10 ounces without a scope. Mine was in 22 lr/410. It was in very good shape, practically new. It was ok accurate with the 22, good enough for squirrel shooting at 25 yards, but nothing special. IT was a lot more difficult to shoot offhand accurately then a good 22 rifle.

At 25 yards, benched, it would shoot a foot size group with either remington/winchester slugs.

At 15 paces benched, on a large piece of paper, the pattern from 3" 6 shot would have missed a red squirrel. I actually shot two more times after that and the pattern still wouldn't have got it.

What is the appeal from those who like this weapon?

Now I know price wasn't a consideration when they were produced, but today these bring 500 plus dollars.

I've been rolling with a lightweight 22 rifle, right now a crickett 22 mag (the savage rascal/tc hotshot look dandy for a single shot 22 lr), and a used 40 cal pistol. I have a more accurate easy to shoot rifle then the m6, and I have 13+ rounds of 40 in a firearm that is always on my body for SD. I also bought those two for what an m6 costs (at minimum). I can also shoot my pistol more accurately standing up then what the m6 would shoot slugs benched. These two still weigh less then my m6- the cricket with the regular polymer stock and a lightweight 3-8x scope are 3 lbs 2 ounces, and with my glock 23 unloaded I'm at 4 lbs 7 ounces.
 
Scottman said:
I know firearms are a very personal thing, but I have to ask the question that is the title of this thread. I HAD an m6 scout. It weighed 4 lbs 10 ounces without a scope. Mine was in 22 lr/410. It was in very good shape, practically new. It was ok accurate with the 22, good enough for squirrel shooting at 25 yards, but nothing special. IT was a lot more difficult to shoot offhand accurately then a good 22 rifle.

At 25 yards, benched, it would shoot a foot size group with either remington/winchester slugs.

At 15 paces benched, on a large piece of paper, the pattern from 3" 6 shot would have missed a red squirrel. I actually shot two more times after that and the pattern still wouldn't have got it.

What is the appeal from those who like this weapon?

Now I know price wasn't a consideration when they were produced, but today these bring 500 plus dollars.

I've been rolling with a lightweight 22 rifle, right now a crickett 22 mag (the savage rascal/tc hotshot look dandy for a single shot 22 lr), and a used 40 cal pistol. I have a more accurate easy to shoot rifle then the m6, and I have 13+ rounds of 40 in a firearm that is always on my body for SD. I also bought those two for what an m6 costs (at minimum). I can also shoot my pistol more accurately standing up then what the m6 would shoot slugs benched. These two still weigh less then my m6- the cricket with the regular polymer stock and a lightweight 3-8x scope are 3 lbs 2 ounces, and with my glock 23 unloaded I'm at 4 lbs 7 ounces.
Click to expand...

I have the 22 Hornet flavor....LOVE it!
 
Mine shot birdshot good and I could hit with the rifle as good as any other gun with iron sights I decided if I ever had to take a deer with it I would use the 22 it was useless with slugs and I tried every slug made they were ok at the original price. when some one offered me 3 time what I gave for it it went bye bye
Roy
 
The earlier models didn't have that integral 'choke' (I hate to legitimize it by calling it a choke, hence the '') so you could bring some 45LC with you. With bird shot it's accurate enough for small game, I can't recall ever putting slugs through mine, and the 22 Hornet is as accurate as I am.

What you've got to keep in mind is that this was designed as an 'oh shit' weapon for downed air crew. It was something light weight, sturdy, reliable, and simple to operate. It was meant to keep them in squirrels until CSAR could get to then, not win ground wars.
 
This came up a year to 18 months ago. A search may pull up the old thread. I owned one for 10 years and found a number of faults with it. Mine was the carbon steel, squeeze lever, .22/410 version. The rear sight was in no way regulated to the corresponding calibers. I found the .22 to be closer to point of aim on the 410 blade than the .22. The pinned barrels had a lot of play on mine. Slightly rotating my support hand on the barrels would cause twisting of the barrel/receiver union and destroy accuracy in the .22 mode. I disliked the civilian trigger guard preventing a complete fold as the military version does. Removing the trigger guard is tricky and and then contact between the trigger lever and receiver will drop the hammer if cocked and folded. The trigger pull on mine was atrocious. If it was less than 30 lbs I would be surprised. While I like the design I wish that a bit more refinement had gone into it. Care must be taken not to lose the pivot pin. Had I kept mine I had planned on purchasing an extra pin and drilling a hole thru the head so that I could tether the pin to the gun.
 
Last edited:
From all reports the M6 Scout looks to be just a piece of stamped, heavy-duty sheet metal assembled with other poorly manufactured components - aka JUNK.

Based on the wide range of opinions of many others with similar critiques across the span of years allow for a wide enough statistical sampling that i wouldn't spend a dime on one. Conceptually, yes, what a great idea. However, engineering/design and manufacturing are so out of the "reliability" park it's actual, in-field performance just doesn't seem a likelihood and unreliability in the field is an immutable requirement.
 
I had the early version, nothing to write home about accuracy wise. A person can make a good survival type rifle out of a Stevens 15 series single shot with a homemade tubular stock.
 
I've never handled one, but I know if someone would bring a stainless version with a real trigger group to market, they would sell like hot cakes. Call it the M6-A. I look at every gun show, but those that have them are not selling them.
 
M69601.jpg
 
I’ve had mine for several years and it is fine for what it is. It is a little on the heavy side and has some odd features that take some getting used to. I removed the trigger guard and my trigger is actually pretty decent with a clean break.

The .410 slug accuracy has never been good with mine and I have a bag of slugs I doubt will ever see the M6 Scout. I did add a Trijicon Reflex sight…1x power with a large 12 MOA triangle. The .22LR is zeroed for the tip of the triangle and I use the base for the .410 buck and bird shot rounds. It has been very effective on squirrel, rabbits, snakes, small birds and feral cats around the home. Largest critter I took was a 50-pound beaver (used buckshot at about 10 feet). The M6 scout does have some range limitations that most dedicated .22LR rifles don’t suffer from. I’m comfortable out to about 50 yards with the .22LR (CCI 40gr solids) and I keep any bird/buck-shot use under 20 yards depending on the game and size of shot.

I still think it’s a great concept that could be improved upon, but if prices aren’t comparable to a Ruger 10/22 or Marlin Papoose, they will never go over very well. It’s a very unique “niche” combo gun that will always attract attention even if it doesn’t perform as most expect it to. I can say one thing, my M6 Scout has been extremely reliable; never had an issue or failure of any type. It may see clunky and awkward, but it’s very simple and reliable from a design stand-point.

As nifty as I personally think the M6 is, the current prices are ridiculous and I wouldn't even consider replacing it if it was lost if stolen. My Marlin Papoose or a slightly modified 10/22 would shoot circles around it for a lot cheaper. As good as the .410 complements the M6 package; I really think a 20 gauge is much more effective and versatile if even at weight loss. I'm only a fan because I've owned one for a while and it works within its limitations; are there better and much cheaper options for a "survival" rifle out there? Absolutely! What is sad is that production ceased. Even if I wasn't a fan, I would be disappointed in the loss of this niche gun on the market for much more reasonable prices...

DSC03172.jpg


ROCK6
 
Last edited:
SWONUT,

It was offered in stainless (or some type of nickel/chrome finish) and a regular trigger. I noticed some sitting in a local gunshop rack years ago. It was also offered in a camou pattern (Duracoat?). As for reliability I never had any malfunction out of the several hundred 22 rounds and 100 410 rounds I fired from it. I took a large amount of small game with it with the largest being big ole possums. I wish Majestic Arms would have come thru with their survival rifle platforms.
 
NothingCoherent said:
I'm guessing most people just like them on a conceptual level and haven't actually handled one. Myself included!
Click to expand...


Me too. I love the gadget appeal of the M6, but the price is much too dear. I'll stick with my 10/22. I'd like to get a folding stock for it to make it more packable. If I were shopping for a combo gun, I'd look for a Savage 24 in 12 guage/.22.
 
Yeah, I probably should have tried 450 mongo- at that point it would be a handloading proposition. I tried a couple different loads for 6 shot. I'm not sure if it would be nice to have a choke tube, I asked the gunsmith but that's another 100 or so bucks to do. I wasn't impressed with it's factory condition to shoot either slugs or the pattern of 410, effective range for the scout I had at 4 lb 10 ounce gun platform with the 410 ammo would be maybe 10 yards for the 6 shot, and 25 tops from a stable position on a deer with the factory options that there are for slugs at common gun shops.

My single shot 12 gauge weighs 5 lbs 3 ounces with the heavy wood buttstock. The mossberg 20 gauges weigh about 5 lbs. I"m un aware of any lighter weight 20 gauges.

100 rounds of 410 3" 11/16 payload is 5 lbs 9 ounces
100 rounds of 20 gauge 2 3/4 7/8 payload is 7 lbs 8 ounces
100 rounds of 12 gauge 2 3/4 1 1/8 payload is 9 lbs 9 ounces

I don't need a lot of ammo for woodsbummin, but for extended you're carrying everything the 410's performance just didn't match up to the weight of the ammo and the range utility I got out of it. It seems for me that on squirrels/small game I can't miss with a proper rifle (running on lighter weight ammo) at the distances I would be connecting with 6 shot on small game.

I held several savage 24's but the weight of them is about the same as my rifles that hold more then two shots.
 
I haven't held one yet but the Savage model 42 was reported to weigh @ 5 lb 10 oz (Jeff Quinn). Not as packable as the M6 but more refined and probably more accurate than most of the M6's.
 
"The Model 42 is very light and handy, weighing in at just under four and three-quarters pounds (4 lbs., 10.6 ounces, to be precise) on my scale." http://gunblast.com/Savage-42.htm It looks to be able to take apart like a normal shotgun, so I'd say it's pretty pack able. I wonder how good it is, they sell em at walmart for about 350 I believe.
 
Scottman said:
"The Model 42 is very light and handy, weighing in at just under four and three-quarters pounds (4 lbs., 10.6 ounces, to be precise) on my scale." http://gunblast.com/Savage-42.htm It looks to be able to take apart like a normal shotgun, so I'd say it's pretty pack able. I wonder how good it is, they sell em at walmart for about 350 I believe.
Click to expand...



That's pretty neat. I wonder if you can also shoot .45 LC through the .410 barrel?
 
Scottman said:
"The Model 42 is very light and handy, weighing in at just under four and three-quarters pounds (4 lbs., 10.6 ounces, to be precise) on my scale." http://gunblast.com/Savage-42.htm It looks to be able to take apart like a normal shotgun, so I'd say it's pretty pack able. I wonder how good it is, they sell em at walmart for about 350 I believe.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I remember thinking it weighed @ the same as an M1 carbine, I just picked the high side instead of the low side.
 
Foilist said:
That's pretty neat. I wonder if you can also shoot .45 LC through the .410 barrel?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is choked so, unless the 45 LC exceeds the pressure limits...... I'd probably stick with the .410 slugs as there are a couple that look decent.
 
While I am enamored with the .410, I'd say for most practical purposes a .20 would be a bit more versatile and easier for a novice to use. The .410 while having attributes, such as low recoil as well as more compact ammunition is kinda a compromise in some regards. The .410 is a shotgun for a skilled minimalist IMHO. Also a reasonably accurate 22 LR barrel on top of this barrel is just the icing on the cake, for shooting on the cheap, and featuring less report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top